tv [untitled] October 22, 2011 9:30pm-10:00pm PDT
economic times. this involves sitting down with the mayor's office and coming down with a comprehensive chart -- coming up with a comprehensive chart on how to save billions of dollars in san francisco. it stops pension spikes, it adjusts the rates that people will be paying during good times and bad times. it really does save money. it is the consensus way of moving forward, it is supported by the board of supervisors, the mayor's office, and virtually every public official. i am proud of the public-sector unions for putting the measure on the ballot. it is really going to save the city money. this has been done in ways that i have not seen anywhere else. people are just attacking public workers, and in san francisco, i take my hat off to the unions
that are going to be sacrificing and going to be paying more into the city funds in order to save these jobs. there are going to be more moneys coming in. i could not be prouder and i am urging everyone to vote yes. i think this is a san francisco way of doing reform. we have done many things and we are urging everybody to vote yes to save over $1 billion and save cities of vergers -- city services. >> this number is based on a 7.75% investment return that people feel as unrealistic. how would you address that marke? >> we have sat down with the civil service unions that have endorsed this measure.
is about the cycles that we go through during bad economic times. they will be contributing more than they used to. we factored in all of these assumptions. the city is doing better, they won't have to pay quite as much. the san francisco way of sharing and moving forward, i will not get into the weeds. but we looked at the analysis of how the city budget works and what types of numbers will be needed. >> it also changes the makeup of the health care board that dictate to the cost and availability of various health care options for current and former city employees. can you please address that issue? >> absolutely, this is controversial and no way that it should not be.
the mayor's office, during the course of negotiations, wanted to place for appointments on the board that have only three participants. they just kept pounding us all the time and we absolutely said no. we don't need to change any of that. the mayor's office backed down and said, the fourth person gets to be nominated, but the electives, there has to be a majority for that person to come in. they will have their voice because they do not like who the mayor and the comptroller have nominated. that is the only piece of controversy that i think a small group of retirees are really arguing about. there are some misconceptions.
there are not for people that the mayor appoints. >> we will be discussing this measure with a proponent. and now, we are here with jerry, the vice chair of a group calle d pob, it stands for protect our benefits. >> i am actually representing about 3700 retirees. they come from the san francisco unified school district, of the city, the court system. we have one thing in common, that is the health services system. nobody knows very much about. our health services handle the
health services system. we see a change being proposed that would change how the health service and system is run. the comptroller has said that it would not. it would change who is on the board. it will take away one that is elected by the san francisco school system. we don't like that. since reform was passed by the voters, it has been an effective model. we can go back to the past where we have problems with political influence, attempts to change things, bringing political
favoritism in to the department. we like the status quo in this case, and we feel very concerned that the change will not be positive. >> what changes are you fearful of happening? >> that there will be a change in the health service board, the composition will be changed from four elected people and three appointees to be for appointees and if reelected. -- four appointees and three elected. and elected by the system. then you have five people. at this point, it has worked extremely well. most decisions are unanimous.
it will be an artificially induced split that will be a change in the composition. that is the major reaction. >> what we spoke with the executive director of the labor council the claim that the seventh appointee would come from the comptroller's office. how do you not believe that that provides protection for your membership? >> where were the appointee comes from as a little bit different from being able to elect the person. the comptroller is himself an appointee of the mayor. so you have an appointee of the appointee, and a 60 day limit before they have to decide on who the person will be.
otherwise, the appointee becomes the person automatically. it seems little unfair. the of us who are retirees were ever involved in any of these discussions. >> we hope that that was informative. please visit the web site at the league of women voters. and remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m..
>> i am ellis said griffin, a columnist the rights of the san francisco city politics. i am also a member of the league of women voters. i am here to have a discussion of proposition d on november's ballot. proposition d is a charter amendment that would change the way that the city, current and future employees share in funding. it will also require an elected officials to pay the same
contribution rates as a city employees. it would increase retirement contribution rates for most current city employees based on city cost. for future city employees, and prohibit the city from paying any employee contributions. proposition c and d, if voters approve of measures, only the one with the most votes will become law. >> i am here with the treasurer of the campaign and a former member -- why should voters vote for proposition d? >> it had its origin a year ago.
the origin of proposition b started with a grand jury investigation of the retirement system in san francisco. i was a member and during those years, i worked with other members of the grand jury. we issued reports in 2010 and 2009 with the expectation that public officials to propose legislation. there is only one public official that approached us and was willing to work on crafting legislation. and that was a public defender. 115,000 voted yes last year. a very strong constituency. we hope they will be back.
the difference between proposition c and d is basically cost savings. d will save over $400 million over the next 10 years. prop d was crafted with exempting lowest paid city workers from any increase in contribution, at the rates that are part of proposition d are progressive. proposition d is also a disruptive force in city politics. there is a very strong special- interest group that has fought
against any pension reform in san francisco. that is later. we hope that they will look at it in a positive way. >> opponents argue that it was done not in a collaborative lateway. that it was done unilaterally. how do you address concerns? >> the origin of proposition b and d was a civil grand jury investigation, a group of 19 residents of san francisco, who had a very diversified group of people representing unions, representing retired people, representing middle-class and minority groups. the fact that this is a
criticism is not valid and the collaboration of the opposition talked about who was a collaboration for special interest groups. >> opponents have alleged that even if it is passed, it will be held up in court and perhaps not even implemented. how do you respond to concerns about proposition d? >> i read about prop c, 8225 page document that was totally incomprehensible to me. i am familiar with legal documents. the d measure is 25 pages, simple to understand. i fully expec tboth me -- expect both measures will be
challenging. especially those that oppose proposition c, and there are many, it will be brought forward. >> up next, we will talk to an opponent of proposition d. i am here with the executive director of the san francisco labor council and an opponent of proposition d. why should voters voted against proposition d? >> i was telling people why they should vote yes on measure c. d is the opposite way of the way people should be doing business. this is a scott walker wisconsin initiative. it was done with no input from the workers. it was financed by a key party republicans that have financed
the this and got $5 a signature to put this on the ballot. none of the city workers were involved, it was unilaterally put on. it is the wisconsin way of doing things. it does not accomplish what is supposed to do. it is legally challengeable. i am asking everyone to vote because there will be legal challenges with what it purports to do. >> proponents say it will save $400 million more than a proposition c. why should they not go with a measure that is going to save more money? >> the process was done without any input on those numbers. they are way over bloated in terms of the numbers, it probably does a little bit more money than what we did, but it was done by the same type of
republicans that are attacking public workers and wisconsin, san jose, other areas around the country. it will not save that type of money. we worked with the city comptroller, we talked to workers, we had major analysis. everybody agrees, this is the way that the city will run better, it will save money and jobs. yes on c commonality. -- no on d. >> the increments they used to determine a contribution are smaller >> is a bogus argument. people claymore during bad times and not so much in good times. it is sensitive to workers that
make -- police and fire and up paying more. it was done with a thorough analysis of different employee organizations in the city. >> thank you so much, mr. paulson. for information about this and other ballot measures, go to the san francisco league of women voters website at sfvotes.com. early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
>> i am columnist who writes about san francisco politics, and a member of the san francisco league of women voters. i am here with the league and sfgtv to discuss proposition e on this november's ballot. ♪ propositioned e would allow the board of supervisors and the mayor to amend or repeal initiative ordinances and declarations of policies that are passed by the voters beginning in january 2012. initiative ordinances and declarations of policy are the only kinds of measures that would be subject to proposition e. for three years after a particular measure takes effect, the board and the mayor may not amend or repeal it. after the first three years, the board and the mayor may amend or repeal the measure with a two- thirds vote at the board.
after seven years, the word and the mayor may amend or repeal the measure with a simple majority vote to the board. proposition e will not allow the border mayor to amend or repeal. measures that the voters approved before january 1, 2012, or measures that the voters place on the ballot by collecting required signatures or charter amendments and bond measures. ♪ i am here with supervisor wiener, a member of the san francisco board of supervisors, who is also a sponsor of proposition e. thank you for being here. why should we vote for proposition e? >> it is very basic reform of our ballot measure system but our system in san francisco in california as a whole is broken. they're too many things that belong to the ballot. other measures that on the ballot that should be handled at city hall, that we should not be throwing at the voters. and then, one measure they are
passing on the ballot, they have a rule in california, we're the only state in the country that does this come aware that measure can never ever be touched, not even moving one comma after 30 years without going back to the voters for another ballot measure. it is a completely rigid system that does not benefit anyone. it is bad government. prop e would basically balance that out a little bit by saying that for ordinances that are put on the ballot by the board or the mayor does not in any way affect signature drive ballot measures. or the mayor put an ordinance on the ballot that, for the first three years, it would be untouchable by the board. for the next four years, the board could amend the measure with a supermajority two-thirds vote. after seven years, the board could read the legislation like any other piece of legislation, subject to the legislative process that is how it is done in every other state that allows voters to legislate, except
california, and i think it is just a good government measure. >> can you think of an intense where, had we had proposition e in place, the voters would have not had to go back and vote again on some cleanup legislation? >> yes, if you look at prop f right now, we're asking the voters, among other things, should political consultants have to file with paper or electronically? should they have to file every month or every three months? but the most voters, if you ask them, would say that should not be on the ballot. that is the kind of legislation that should be handled by the board, but we have to put it on the ballot because the boaters that the original ordinance. i also have been working with both tenant and landlord advocates to clean up the rent control ordinance so that it reflects accurately what courts have ruled. they have started on some of our provisions, but the municipal code is inaccurate because it
does not reflect those rulings. i regret that it is to try to come up with cleanup legislation, and it turns out we cannot do it because most of those provisions were enacted by the voters. even if a court strikes something done, we cannot even clean up the municipal code to reflect that without going back to the voter. that does not make sense. >> what do you say to voters who are nervous about giving the power over to amend something that have passed at the ballot to politicians, to members of the board, and to the mayor? >> first, prop e only affects a small percentage of ballot measures. italy impacts, at most, 20% of ballot measures. 80% are completely off limits. it also does not in any way allow us to minnesota measures that were placed on the ballot -- allow us to replace measures that were placed on the ballot by voters. what it does do is say that when
the mayor or the board put something on, we need to have some flexibility after the fact. a lot of times, we see the board of supervisors but measures on the ballot that are not well thought through, that have come out of no public process, with no prior scrutiny, and then the >> if they vote yes, they shouldn't be amended again, it goes back to the voters. in reality, it's too difficult to run a campaign for it. this is a very, very limited, very, very modest good government measure that really does continue to respect the will of the voters. >> thank you very much. up next, we'll hear from an opponent of proposition h. i'm here with eileen hanson, a former member of the san francisco ethics commission where she served for six years. ms. hanson is an opponent to
proposition e. >> why should voters vote on proposition sthench >> it takes away the rights of voters. it's a perfect example of the voters able to have their say and vote and proposition e is a measure that once the voters have spoken, amend that decision or repeal that decision. so this measure actually undoes what the voters have said and that's not appropriate, in my view, or in the view of many, many, many who have come forward to oppose proposition everyone. >> persons who are in favor of proposition everyone argue that it's limited in scope. it doesn't apply to amendments put on the ballot of voters signatures and it's 20% of the measures passed by the voters. how do you address that snitch >> it applies to e issue that was put on the ballot by the mayor or board of supervisors.
while it doesn't apply to measures put on the ballot through signature gathering, it applies to very important measures that came to us through our elected officials. again, once the voters have spoken, regardless of how the measure ended up on the ballot, who are we as elected officials, anyone who is elected to undo the voice of the voters. i believe that democracy is about the voters' choice. once the voters have spoken, that is the end of the story. there are plenty of measures that i personally disagree with that i wish haven't passed and what i do need to do about it? i need to work to get those measures to come back to the ballot. i need to work my elected officials. i do not expect my elected officials to undo what the majority of voters have said. >> certain officials who have endorsed proposition e said they have done it to voter concerns and anger to have vote for so many propositions over
and over. the idea behind the proposition is to allow them to clean up certain propositions so we can cut back on the frequency and the number of ballot propositions that voters have to contend with. how do you address that issue? >> certainly, some people are concerned that our ballot in california is too long. i have not heard any good government advocates say that. i actually haven't heard many individuals or haven't seen any organized opposition to our ballot, so i'm concerned that this measure comes really not from voter advocacy or voter concern, but comes from people who believe that the voters should not be the folks who have the ultimate choice. and to me, that's arrogant. it's patronizing to voters. the message about proposition e sponsored by supervisor weiner as well as f sponsored by
supervisor weiner both come from the place saying that elected officials know better than the voters. whether there is too much on our ballot or not, the voters, it seems to me, should not be talked down to, should not be told that they need a measure like this because as supervisor weiner has said, the voters go to the ballot. it's a complicated ballot. they don't know how to understand the ballot. there hasn't been a lot of vetting of the issues. there hasn't been a lot of discussion before things get to the ballot. so the poor voters get to the voting booth and don't know what to do and it's not fair to them. >> i believe that the voters particularly our voters in san francisco are very educated, are very knowledgeable. they believe in democracy. they want to vote on measures and they don't want to be told that they're not smart enough to figure out what to vote for and what to vote against. so once they have made that choice, we need to respect that choice. >> thank you. >> thank you. we hope you found that informative. for more information about